2 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.

3 DAVIS, Justice. [ 1] The Wyoming Workers Compensation Division (Division) denied several benefits and bills submitted by Sheri Eaton, which she claimed were related to a 2010 workplace injury resulting from an incident there. Ms. Eaton then requested a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). After considering the evidence presented, the OAH determined that Ms. Eaton did not prove that her injury was related to the workplace event. It also upheld the final determination by the Division ceasing payments for temporary total disability benefits and mental health treatment six months after reaching maximum medical improvement. Ms. Eaton then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the OAH s decision. [ 2] Ms. Eaton challenges the district court s decision in this appeal. She claims the hearing examiner s decision to uphold the Division s determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. [ 3] After examining the briefs, appellate record, and controlling law, this Court has determined unanimously to enter an abbreviated opinion affirming the district court s order pursuant to W.R.A.P ISSUES [ 4] Ms. Eaton states the issues on appeal as follows: 1. Whether the OAH s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 2. Whether the decision of the OAH denying Ms. Eaton s request for benefits is arbitrary and capricious. STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 5] Our standard of review in an appeal taken from a district court s review of an administrative agency s decision has been oft stated, see Guerrero v. State ex rel. Dep t of Workforce Servs., Workers Comp. Div., 2015 WY 88, 11, 352 P.3d 262, (Wyo. 2015), and need not be restated here. 1 Specifically, W.R.A.P. 9.06(a)(1)-(2) apply in this case. Thus, in accordance with W.R.A.P. 9.06(b), this abbreviated opinion provides the ultimate disposition without a detailed statement of facts or law. Rule 9.06 was amended effective July 1,

4 ULTIMATE DISPOSITION Substantial Evidence [ 6] A worker s compensation claimant has the burden of proving all of the essential elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Guerrero, 15, 352 P.3d at 266 (quoting State ex. rel. Wyo. Workers Safety & Comp. Div. v. Slaymaker, 2007 WY 65, 13, 156 P.3d 977, 981 (Wyo. 2007)). To qualify for worker s compensation benefits, an employee must demonstrate he suffered a compensable injury, as defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann (a)(xi) (LexisNexis 2015). 2 Under the statutory definition of injury, the claimant has the burden of establishing the cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed and proving that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Guerrero, 15, 352 P.3d at 267 (quoting Hanks v. City of Casper, 2001 WY 4, 6, 16 P.3d 710, 711 (Wyo. 2001)). [ 7] The claimant must show that there is a causal connection to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Guerrero, 15, 352 P.3d at 267. This commonly requires expert medical testimony that it is more probable than not that the work contributed in a material fashion to the precipitation, aggravation or acceleration of the injury. Id. With all witnesses, the OAH examiner must make credibility determinations. See Newman v. State ex rel. Dep t of Workforce Servs., Workers Safety & Comp. Div., 2015 WY 14, 9, 341 P.3d 1066, 1069 (Wyo. 2015) ( We defer to the hearing examiner s determination of witness credibility unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ); see also Robbins v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers Safety & Comp. Div., 2003 WY 29, 20, 64 P.3d 729, 733 (Wyo. 2003) ( The hearing examiner is the factfinder in a worker s compensation case and is, consequently, charged with determining the witnesses credibility. ). [ 8] We have carefully reviewed the complete record and are confident that the OAH hearing examiner s conclusion that Ms. Eaton did not satisfy her burden of proving that the injuries for which she claimed worker s compensation benefits were caused by the work-related accident is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and is, therefore, supported by substantial evidence. 2 Injury is defined as: [A]ny harmful change in the human organism other than normal aging and includes damage to or loss of any artificial replacement and death, arising out of and in the course of employment while at work in or about the premises occupied, used or controlled by the employer and incurred while at work in places where the employer s business requires an employee s presence and which subjects the employee to extrahazardous duties incident to the business. Wyo. Stat. Ann (a)(xi). 2

5 Arbitrary and Capricious [ 9] The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is not easily categorized to a particular standard; rather, it provides a safety net to catch agency action that prejudices a party s substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards. In re Vandre, 2015 WY 52, 21, 346 P.3d 946, 953 (Wyo. 2015). It applies, inter alia, if the agency failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law. Id. [ 10] After a solicitous examination of the OAH s 53-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, and a detailed review of the record, we agree with the district court that the OAH s determination was not arbitrary or capricious. [ 11] Affirmed. 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2007 WY 124 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007 August 3, 2007 IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: KEITH HUNTINGTON, Appellant (Petitioner), v. 06-237 STATE OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: DEAN HILDEBRANT, Appellant (Petitioner), 2015 WY 41 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2014 March 24, 2015 v. S-14-0166 STATE

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: DAVID GREEN, Appellant (Petitioner), 2013 WY 81 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2013 July 9, 2013 v. S-12-0238 STATE OF WYOMING,

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

NOTICE Decision filed 08/20/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2013 IL App (5th 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC

NO. CAAP-10-0000222 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ROBERT L. RODRIGUES JR., Claimant-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY, Employer-Appellee APPEAL

September 3 2013 DA 12-0749 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 252N IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ROSS JULSON, and Petitioner and Appellee, MARCI LYNN JULSON, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this a Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

STATE OF NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION Draft Tentative Report Relating to November 7, 2011 This draft tentative report is distributed to advise interested persons of the Commission's tentative

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING In Re: Wrongful death action of Jerome C. Knight, by and through his wrongful death personal representative, GARRET KNIGHT, Appellant (Plaintiff), 2015 WY 9 OCTOBER

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA ELSA PEREZ APPELLANT v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/27/2013 TRIBUNAL FROM WHICH MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: April 5, 2007 500157 In the Matter of the Claim of JANINE F. MORGAN, Respondent, v NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 28, 2011 Session ROCHELLE M. EVANS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

Before The State Of Wisconsin DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the Matter of the Crime Victim Compensation Application of PO Case No. CV-01-0003 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER On March

2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer

Current Workers Compensation Law Compared to the 2013 Workers Compensation Reform Act Area Addressed Current Law Reform Act Workers Compensation Division The Division of Workers Compensation operates under

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DORETTA TURNER, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-0640

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- MARTIN S. GOUR, Claimant-Appellant, vs. HONSADOR LUMBER, LLC, Employer-Appellee, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA/CHARTIS

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

Before The State Of Wisconsin DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the Matter of the Crime Victim Compensation Application of GP Case No. CV-02-0005 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER On February

WORK-RELATED INJURIES SPECIAL REPORT Dear Friend: If you have been involved in a work-related accident, there are a lot of things that you absolutely need to know. Workers compensation is a statutory right

NOTICE Decision filed 06/19/07. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. Workers' Compensation Commission Division

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY JARRATT ROBERTS, Appellant, v. C.A. No.: N13A-10-001 FWW UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellee. On Appeal from the Unemployment

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 2, 2005 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WILLIAM T. CAPPS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D08-5263

NO. CAAP-13-0005414 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I TREVOR B. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTY L. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). No. 3--10--0248 Order filed April

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SHARON E. MCINTOSH, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-2397

NOTICE Decision filed 06/15/10. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. Workers' Compensation Commission Division